Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (JUDICIAL REVIEW) BILL 2001

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the Bill be now read a second time—

Debate resumed by Mr Sciacca who moved, as an amendment—That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:

(1) expresses its concern that amendments passed by the Senate that have attempted to exclude the original jurisdiction of the High Court in migration matters may be found to be unconstitutional or ineffectual;

(2) observes that the Government is yet to table its legal advice which confirms the constitutionality or efficacy of these measures;

(3) expresses its concern that the amendments may actually increase the number of migration decisions challenged in the High Court which will further delay the processing of migration cases and result in a further drain on our legal system;

(4) expresses its concern that the Government has not addressed the issue of vexatious or unwarranted proceedings being commenced as a tactical delay to the implementation of migration decisions;


(5) notes that the Opposition provided to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs an alternative proposal to provide a fair but speedy form of judicial review in the form of a `one stop shop' at the Federal Magistrates level; and

(6) expresses its disappointment that the Government has not provided a more constructive response to that proposal".

Debate continued.

Closure

Mr Brough (Minister for Employment Services) moved—That the question be now put.

Question—That the question be now put—put.

The House divided (the Deputy Speaker, Mr Nehl, in the Chair)—

AYES, 71

Mr AbbottMr FaheyMr LloydMr Secker
Mr AndersonMr FischerMr McArthur*Mr Slipper
Mr K. J. AndrewsMr Forrest*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr Somlyay
Mr AnthonyMrs GallusMr McGauranDr Southcott
Fran BaileyMs GambaroMrs MayDr Stone
Mr BairdMrs GashMrs MoylanMrs Sullivan
Mr BarresiMr GeorgiouMr NairnMr C. P. Thompson
Mr BartlettMr HaaseDr NelsonMr A. P. Thomson
Mr BillsonMr HardgraveMr NevilleMr Truss
Mrs B. K. BishopMr HawkerMr PearceMr Tuckey
Ms J. I. BishopMr HockeyMr ProsserMr M. A. J. Vaile
Mr BroughMrs HullMr PyneMrs D. S. Vale
Mr CadmanMr JullMr ReithMr Wakelin
Mr CameronMrs D. M. KellyMr RonaldsonDr Washer
Mr CausleyJackie KellyMr RuddockMr Williams
Mrs DraperDr KempMr St ClairDr Wooldridge
Mrs ElsonMr LawlerMr SchultzMs Worth
Mr EntschMr LindsayMr Scott

NOES, 61

Mr AdamsMr FitzgibbonMs J. S. McFarlaneMs Roxon
Mr AlbaneseMs GerickMs MacklinMr Rudd
Mr AndrenMr GibbonsMr McLeayMr Sawford*
Mr BevisMs GillardMr McMullanMr Sciacca
Mr BreretonMr HattonDr MartinMr Sercombe*
Ms BurkeMs HoareMr MelhamMs Short
Mr ByrneMr HollisMr MorrisMr Sidebottom
Ms CorcoranMr HorneMr MossfieldMr Smith
Mr CoxMrs IrwinMr MurphyMr Snowdon
Mrs CrosioMr JenkinsMs O'ByrneMr Tanner
Mr EdwardsMs KernotMr O'ConnorMr K. J. Thomson
Ms EllisMr KerrMr O'KeefeMr Wilkie
Mr EmersonMr LathamMs PlibersekMr Zahra
Mr M. J. EvansMr LeeMr Price
Mr L. D. T. FergusonMs LivermoreMr Quick
Mr M. J. FergusonMr McClellandMr Ripoll

* Tellers

Pairs

Mr Howard Mr Beazley

Mr Downer Dr Lawrence

Mr Lieberman Ms Hall

Mr Charles Mr Griffin

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

And the question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question—was put accordingly, and passed.

Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put and passed—Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

On the motion of Mr Ruddock (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs), the Bill was read a third time.